[dragonwriter]

> It was tenuous when it was first established. It became less so over time.

From the Restoration to now the complete immunity of the monarch to civil and criminal law has been given; and its only in the mid-20th century that British law recognized some claims against the monarch's government being of-right rather than by-license.

The idea of the monarch being subject to the law was more of a momentary, fleeting, and swiftly violently repressed concept in English law that had already been generally repudiated in England itself when the idea got raised as part of the Revolutionary propaganda in some of England's American colonies a century later, rather than something that was tenuous when first proposed in England but which later became firmly established.

(To the extent Britain has made progress in the rule of law, accountability of the chief of state to the law is pretty much the worst place to look for examples; the bloodshed on both sides of that issue has led to most subsequent progress in the direction of rule of law focusing on making the monarch irrelevant to the law in anything other than a symbolic sense rather than accountable to it.)

[vinceguidry]

It was fairly obvious once I started studying this stuff that the idea that a head of state should be immune to certain laws that keep commoners in line. It would suck if the President had to wait in line at airport security. You don't prosecute the President, you impeach him. The class of wrongs he can commit is wholly different than that of his people by virtue of his position. Note I never said that a sovereign and his people need to be under the same law. That doesn't really work. What's important is that his powers are limited and circumscribed to a select few, with all others devolving to the people.

Many, many important battles have been fought to change the nature of power between state and nation to form a real difference from the normal state of affairs. That is what I'm arguing is the real crux of the matter.